FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Wednesday, April 30, 2025
CAPTION: EDELSTEIN V. EDELSTEIN
APPEAL NOS.: C-240044, C-240127
TRIAL NO.: DR-2201279
KEY WORDS: CUSTODY – DIVORCE – BEST INTEREST – EVIDENCE – VISITATION – JURISDICTION – OATH ADMINISTRATION – VENUE – JUDICIAL NOTICE – MARITAL ESTATE – CONTEMPT – RECORDS ACCESS – IN-CAMERA INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Father sole custody of the parties’ minor child where the record demonstrated that Mother engaged in emotionally abusive behavior that alienated the minor child from the rest of his family.
The trial court did not err when it admitted a custodial-evaluation report into evidence, because in the absence of a viable basis for exclusion, one parties’ refusal to participate in the investigative and compilation stage does not render a report inadmissible.
The trial court did not err when it authorized its staff attorney to administer oaths to testifying witnesses outside of the courtroom where the staff attorney then stated on the record that each witness had been sworn-in and was testifying under oath.
The trial court did not err when it found that Hamilton County, Ohio, was the proper venue for the parties’ divorce proceedings where all material facts giving rise to Father’s complaint for divorce arose in Hamilton County.
The trial court did not err when it took judicial notice of a jury’s journalized verdict form in a federal lawsuit to which Mother was a party.
The trial court erred in part when it divided the parties’ marital assets where the court’s final order concerning the conveyance of the automobiles bought during the marriage was not only unsupported by competent, credible evidence but directly contrary to the court’s findings and the evidence presented at trial.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it restricted Mother’s access to the minor child’s records where it found that a restriction was necessary to further the child’s best interest.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by MOORE, J.; CROUSE , P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. NICHOLS
APPEAL NO.: C-240364
TRIAL NO.: C/24/CRB/1994
KEY WORDS: ASSAULT — SELF DEFENSE — AT FAULT
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for misdemeanor assault must be reversed because the State failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not at fault in creating the affray where surveillance footage showed that defendant was not at fault as it corroborated defendant’s testimony that she attempted to diffuse the situation as a peacekeeper when she was brought into the affray.
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND APPELLANT DISCHARGED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. THOMAS
APPEAL NO.: C-240461
TRIAL NO.: B-2305218
KEY WORDS: MOTION TO SUPPRESS – AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION – OFFICER SAFETY – BRUEN – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle during a traffic stop where officers reasonably searched defendant’s car to protect officer safety after he was removed from the vehicle based on a suspected firearm.
Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to dismiss firearm charges under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), where defendant argued it was merely possible, not probable, that such a motion would have changed the outcome of his case.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; BOCK and NESTOR, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: D.L.
APPEAL NOS.: C-240560, C-240561, C-240562
TRIAL NOS.: 23/2211-01 Z, 23/2211-02 Z, 23/2211-03 Z
KEY WORDS: CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON — IMPROPER HANDLING OF A FIREARM IN A MOTOR VEHICLE — RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY — SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE — POSSESSION — OBJECTIONS — MAGISTRATE
SUMMARY: The trial court’s finding that the juvenile constructively possessed a firearm recovered in a vehicle that the juvenile was driving was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the juvenile was the sole occupant of the vehicle, the firearm was inside a bag located directly underneath the driver’s seat of the vehicle, the strap of the bag containing the firearm was hanging out from under the seat, and the juvenile, prior to the traffic stop being initiated, engaged in what the arresting officer believed to be evasive driving behavior.
The juvenile’s adjudication for receiving stolen property was not supported by sufficient evidence where the State failed to adduce any evidence that the firearm that was the subject of the charge was stolen.
JUDGMENTS: AFFIRMED IN C-240560 and C-240561; REVERSED AND APPELLANT DISCHARGED IN C-240562
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: D CHILDREN
APPEAL NOS.: C-240682, C-250042
TRIAL NO.: F/08/1521 X
KEY WORDS: PARENTAL TERMINATION – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE – BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD
SUMMARY: The juvenile court’s judgment remanding custody of the minor children to mother was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed that she remedied the agency’s initial concerns when the children were removed from her home and that it was in the children’s best interest to return to mother’s custody.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.